tv [untitled] August 30, 2011 6:30pm-7:00pm PDT
function, enhancing it through the master plan. land impressed with the trust must provide a significant benefit to the trust. examples of that could be the shoreline parks that are being created at pier 70 that will provide great public value and appreciation of the day -- bay. remediation issues needs to be addressed. karen has been working with the water quality control board, doing a state investigation of pier 70. the requirement is that you have a remedial action plan approved by the regional board before the swap can happen. state lands is there to make sure the trust does not received land that have no way of being cleaned up and used effectively. both the state lands commission and city must approve the exchange. after the bill is adopted, if
signed by the governor, we would be back in front of the port commission with a final proposal based on some of the work you have seen today. also, the board of supervisors would have to weigh in. the state lands commission does a lot of titles survey work associated with the exchange to make sure that everything is legal. a few of the other unique portions of the bill. the port could continue to hold non-trust lands at pier 70. this is unusual, really. after a trust exchange, the assumption is the grant to will sell the non-trust lands. actually, it took a lot of creative work with the state to get them comfortable with the idea that the port would hold these lands. one of the ways in which they became comfortable with the idea is that revenues from the non-
trust areas would go into the carper fund. so that would be a benefit to the trust. they also agreed to allow the port at its discretion to use port revenue bonds as a financing vehicle for publicly oriented improvements on those non-trust lands. pier 70, we are talking about infrastructure finance districts, and the ability to use port revenue bonds to make improvements to streets, utilities, historic buildings, parks, etc. that are on non- trust lands. but the park would have to first demonstrate that over all, trust was out of the entire pier 70 master plan. the trust was receiving more investment from non-trust sources than the port was investing of its proceeds in the non-trust land. we think that is a test that we
will be able to meet by a long shot. the preliminary calculations put together by kathleen showed $300 million in benefits to the trust at pier 70 out of the master plan. so i am going to segue here. seawall lot 330. the city entered the host agreement with the america's cup, to host the 34th america's cup in 2013. there is a court agreement between the parties that if the event authority invests in the waterfront to make it race- ready, that we will provide a long-term development rights at a number of locations as a means of repaying that investment. the core of those development rights are piers 30, 32, and
seawall lot 330. a host of a new agreement is pretty explicit about a requirement for the city to use best efforts to remove the trust from seawall lot 330. we are lucky that in 2007 we had gone and laid the groundwork for this with sb 815. it found seawall lot 330 and a number of other lots useless and lifted the restriction and allow the leases for non-trust uses. so we have been in discussions with state planned staff about how to revise those findings and requirements. this is a faded met. i am sorry about that. -- faded map.
it shows seawall lot 330 in its entirety. you do not have this in your set of maps. this was developed for the watermark condominium. a remaining 4.3 acres on the side that is used as a service parking lot right now, directly across the street from piers 30 and 32. ab 418 confirms that seawall lot 330 is useless to the trust. we have several decades of leasing history that shows the site has not been used for trust purposes. it permits sale based on the appraisal methodology called for in the host agreement. we have conducted at set of appraisals. the consideration, the price -- purchase price of the property can be provided in the form of
improvements to other port property. that is likely to the improvements to piers 30, 32, no. waterfront, public assets -- access benefits. in addition, the port must identify 2.3 acres ofbay shoreline property that can be entrusted with the trust that is not currently encumbered by the trust. we would have to do that prior to the transfer of title of seawall lot 330. this is a fairly significant to. it fills one of the major city obligations, and we are hopeful that the legislature approves it and the governor signs it. that is my presentation. bill and myself are available for questions that you may have.
>> thank you. we do have public comment. maryland's men's -- marilyn smith. i am sorry. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners? brad, in your first slide, it says the bill was introduced february 2010. you said february 2011. >> i am sorry, 2011. it is not a two-year bill. that is me rushing after vacation. >> understood. you said it is in suspense but was hoping it would be passed. i do not remember all of my legislative history, so -- >> senate or assembly appropriations has a procedure called the suspense file.
this is for bill that are deemed to potentially have a financial impact to the state. if they are deemed to have a significant cost, than they normally go to the suspense file. they sit there and then they were voted off after a week or two has gone by. in this case, the committee consultant was primarily looking to make sure that the port entered a cost reimbursement agreement with state plans to cover the cost of doing the title history, review when the surveys, the other work that follows legislation, which we do as a matter, of course, anyway. we are currently in that kind of cost reimbursement agreement for pier 70. they were seeking similar agreements with respect to seawall lot 330, which only
seems fair and appropriate. we agreed -- the author agreed to those proposed amendments. we have every expectation that it will be voted off suspense on the 22nd, i believe, and then head to the senate floor. so far there has been no opposition registered to the bill. >> there was a bullet point somewhere about how the bill would permit the port to hold the land from which the trust is removed. that seems counterintuitive. why would state lands care? that would assume that we would turn around and sell it. why do you need permission to hold it? >> this goes to the issue -- the public resources code sets forth rules about how trust grantees have to keep separate revenues
derived from trust lands and make an accounting to the state. so we, at the staff level, have to look at -- as an example, how we purchase from the city for trust property -- and really be careful that any of those expenditures benefit the trust. state plans has run into problems where trust grantees want to use their harbor funds to spend on things that, in their view, do not benefit the trust. an example might be a southern california port wanting to fund a trend line largely of trust property that has a terminus on trust property. in that case, they viewed that as an inappropriate subsidy of a non-trust activity. so they are vigilant about this,
always looking around the state to make sure grantees are following the rules. in this case, we were looking for something that was really antithetical to that position, which was that we would all these non-trust land with a lot of non-trust uses on them, and they were worried that we would be using pork harbor funds to subsidize the activity. so we have been careful in the legislation to make sure we have separate accounting and that we have an overall equation that provides a financial benefit to the trust. >> thank you. questions, comments? >> i had a question regarding the need to have these sites cleaned up and whatever remediation. does that need to be completed, just a plan to do the remediation? >> typically, you need to have
an adopted remedial action plan. so that has gone through the entire public process that the regional board or department of toxic subsidies controls and administers. in this case, we are working with the regional board. we have gone through site investigations, identified the extent of the contamination, you have done a number of concepts about how you are going to approach remediation while managing on site or removing it, disposing of it elsewhere, and there has been appropriate public comment and review of the plan. it does not need to be entered before the transfer title occurs. >> how far along in the process are we? >> we are pretty much in the latter stages of this investigation piece that we have done. the uplands investigation.
we have done some investigation of the hazardous materials in the building. i think our next step is to look at some of the sediment around the site to see what is in those locations. so we are in the first third of the process, i would say. >> if i may, the investigation and analysis have been the subject of other commission actions, probably prior to your tenure. for the benefit of the public, there are some good staff reports online that candelabra on that. we will be coming back to the commission when the results are all the way in. it is a great question, but i just wanted to say it is also on line for the general public. >> as far as getting into detail about it, the results have been pretty good. i think port staff has a feeling that there is a way forward to
coming in terms of fulfilling the requirements of the regulatory agencies. >> something else that i was that quite sure -- you said all revenues transferred from the land trust go into the harbor fond? >> those would be net revenues. clearly, our private development partner will incur a lot of cost associated with the site build out, doing the infrastructure, doing a vertical development as well. but there will be a long-term lease for those sites where the commission could, at its option, consider sale of a portion of those properties. under that long term lease model, there would be presumably some revenues at the port would likely use to subsidize other improvements, for example, pier 70, those would have to be
deposited in the port harbor fund. >> any other questions or comments? thank you. that was a wonderful presentation we can tell a lot have gone into this. we are happy to do is what within the same property, which is rare. just for clarification, seawall lot 330, we will remain in -- retain the watermark condominium site? >> no, that was part of a similar, prior package associate with the cruise terminal bill. we did a swap in that case. that was an equal value swap. the trust was impressed on portions of thewp site in exchange for that half acre. >> the remaining site would be
transferred? >> exactly. >> thank you. >> items on the consent calendar. request authorization to award construction contract #2752 north a prepare project to suv construction management inc. doing business management company in an amount not to exceed $786,000, and also authorized have to increase the contract amount by 10% in the event of unanticipated contingencies through contract modification or change order for a total of $864,000. 5 b, request authorization to apply for, except, and expend a grant or $5 million from the state of california prop. 84 statewide park development and community revitalization program of 2008 for the northeast north plaza open space, located on pier 27 at the embarcadero
promenade across from lombard street. five c p request authorization to advertise a request for quote -- qualifications soliciting as needed real estate economics and related professional services. 5 d except the port's annual report on contra connectivity for fiscal year 2010-2011. >> so move. second. >> any public comment on the consent calendar? commissioners? all in favor? the resolution 1151, 1152, and 1153 , along with the port annual report have been approved. >> on 5b, i would like to commend staff for uncovering a substantial amount of money. from what i understand, they had to work with other city agencies
to get the party to go for this. it would be fabulous if it comes through. again, kudos on the creativity and finding the opportunity. >> bigger and better. >> 6a. request adoption of the california environmental quality act findings and mitigation, monterey, an error reporting program for and approval of brandon street wharf public open space project. >> good morning, commissioners. hobbesian this morning, we are here to request the adoption of the california environmental quality act findings and mitigation, my turn, and reporting program for an
approval of the brenda street wharf public space open project. i will provide a better product history, describe the features of the project, introduced the project team, and then die and will speak about the environmental documents. the ministry fourth to be located on the embarcadero, not between piers 30/32 and 38 will be a new $7 a square foot public space parallel to the embarcadero promenade. the work will define the center of the south beach neighborhood. for a better product history, in the year of 2000, the san francisco bay conservation and development commission all working with the port amended their special area plans for the san francisco waterfront. changes made to this plan and in the port's waterfront land use plan remove a longstanding bcdc 50% rule which effectively prevented the redevelopment of many of the historic sheds.
with the adoption of these documents, projects such as the exploratory more able to move forward. as part of the negotiations for this, the court agreed to construct two as a given space as eleanor the waterfront. the northeast were plaza, which is the new public space proposed by the area in front of the cruise terminal, and thebrannon street wharf. these spaces are both described in detail in size and of the uses and the port agreed to build the space is within a 20- year period from the time the plan was adopted. to implement this, the port began in 2001 working with some of the members -- i see a couple of them in the room today. working with bcdc and a 20- member citizen advisory committee. the cac included citizen groups, residents, merchants, and a furry of groups representing a
broad mix of regional and local viewpoint. the port conducted seven meetings and three public workshops. the cause of design was reviewed at joint meetings by bcdc review board and the port's waterfront advisory committee three times. the design was concluded on december 9, 2002, andaugust 12,t commission approved the concept design. the concept design was again reviewed on july 6 and september 14, 2009, becoming the basis for the project described in the environmental analysis, located in the south beach waterfront. this is an image of the original concept design that was put forward in 2002.
the wharf will be a new open space, connected to the prominent on the south edge of 32. an area that is currently characterized by dilapidated and failing whorf sections. the new war will have a light shade, adding a 10. section in widening to about 140 feet at the south and the pier 36. the major project components are too rigid include a major neighborhood green. think of it as a new waterfront commons for the south beach area. two, afloat for small craft. third, interpretive elements that interact with and described the bay environment. the project will demolish the condemned pure 36, including
the war between piers 32 m 38. as discussed in the environmental document. constructing a concrete support of war for along the length of the embarcadero. to look at how the wharf will be used, expecting tables and benches, the area is the plaza, with interpretive elements in it. you can see the large, neighborhood green, an unscripted space for whatever you might want to do, as long as you do not throw a ball too far. the design remembers its san francisco waterfront history by taking on the shape of pier 36. it juts out a little bit. there is the use of architectural fabric that i will describe in a moment. mostly flat, with long, contain,
based planters of 18 churches in height. the open nature of the side is oriented to the bay and the adjacent neighborhood. this is the railing on the outside. it has a full, tight bass, made from concrete, intended to add one more foot of wave protection. also, the entire war angles slightly up from the, not to take those considerations in. as far as the sturdiness of materials, we have reduced maintenance costs going forward. another view of the problem of section along the waterfront, back toward the bay bridge, here is the portal for 30-36. we are proposing to be used the posts and crosse numbers of
material, consistent with how it is used now. also, pier 36 was taken off of the shed a couple of years ago. it will be reconstructed with lighting. we will be using several elements from the existing pier to get down to the public's low. in the plaza, where we are proposing to construct three title columns, as we call them, they will operate together. not that different heights, but there are giant plungers that go up and down with a height of the day. they are marked in 1 foot increments, to inform people driving by, walking on the promise not, what the height of the tide is. in the middle, three and a half.
on the far right, the maximum tied tight. fitting the third category of interpretive elements about the bay. also, on the south and of the site, 52.5 feet long, following a timeline, talking about the history that occurred on the site. a tidal marsh that appalled and emphasizes the chinese immigration that occurred on this site, as relegated from the warehouse nearby. also, going to some of the sites, important labor history that occurred on this site in the 1984 strike. sustainable design and construction, although it will not be certified as we do of certified public spaces just yet, we are looking at public
space guidelines to evaluate how we do construction, reuse and construction materials, putting recycle materials in, and most importantly, in the concrete, a very water efficient irrigation system with planting materials. also, designing what is not on here, most importantly, all long life span. not just a site that will be a marginal use. i do not have the exact dates. stephen can provide them. they will have a longevity to them. it will be able to withstand a significant amount of urban use. some of the site furnishings are intended so that the site always faces the bay.
the war can also be described as a collection of projects. the first is the demolition of pier 36, to be done by the army corps of engineers with a majority of funding being federal. they did administer a demolition contract scheduled for january of 2012, to be completed in may. at the commission's next meeting, september, staff will return. steven will be requesting authorization to advertise the major elements not originally anticipated for the area, including the strengthening of the sea wall along the length of the project, with reconstruction supported along the from another, where the sea wall goes to the curved edge of the roadway. you do not realize that you are in a pile supported structure. when the demolition is
completed, the court will begin construction with expectations for completion by the end of 2016, in time for the america's cup. funding will be provided in greater detail at your next meeting. construction tasks originally anticipated over that section of, not bring the total costs to around $29 million, $3 million greater than the current develop funds. at the next meeting we will present alternates and options for how the project may proceed with available funds. i just want to introduce some of the project participants. steven is the project engineer. i do not see them in the room right now. a historic architect